incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)
Date Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:38:36 GMT
Greg, which of these do you use when the “contributor” is a committer? Remember the model
here is that the author is never allowed to commit their own code.

Ralph

> On Nov 19, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The Apache Subversion project does something similar:
> 
> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/conventions.html#crediting
> 
> We have a tool ("contribulyzer") that analyzes them. It's pretty neat.
> On Nov 19, 2015 1:57 PM, "Chris Nauroth" <cnauroth@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> 
>> Some projects use the git Signed-off-by field in the commit log to
>> differentiate the author from the reviewer.
>> 
>> --Chris Nauroth
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/19/15, 10:58 AM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> And there is another problem I have. Maybe it isn¹t true of all projects,
>>> but the one I am involved with says the author can¹t commit his own code.
>>> So the commit logs will not reflect who actually authored the code but
>>> who reviewed it.
>>> 
>>> I could probably tolerate RTC if I had to have the commit somewhere it
>>> could be reviewed, I had to wait for the review and fix any defects and
>>> then could commit the code myself (ideally even if no one actually
>>> reviewed it). That process isn¹t really much different than what I do for
>>> my larger commits anyway. But just submitting something for review and
>>> then hoping someone reviews it and then hoping someone commits it takes
>>> all the joy out of it for me.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 19, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sure, that's a big problem with some RTC workflows. Using gerrit or
>>>> github
>>>> PRs makes the flow much easier -- for a trivial or small patch, the sort
>>>> that a "drive-by" contributor typically contributes, there probably
>>>> won't
>>>> be any review comments. So, they just push the patch for review, and
>>>> they
>>>> can be out of the loop for the rest of it. If the patch requires small
>>>> revisions (eg addressing a typo or something) I think it's fine for the
>>>> reviewer to just make the change themselves and commit on behalf of the
>>>> original author to avoid the issue you've raised. Most RTC workflows
>>>> permit
>>>> this kind of thing in my experience.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message